The ATD 2014 Lineup Assassination Thread - Jim Robson Division

[Hawkey Town 18]

Forwards

PK

Kevin Lowe seems a bit out of place on an ATD first unit PK. I'd consider putting Blake in there, and tell him to just destroy everyone in the front of the net where his propensity to sometimes get out of position isn't as much of a problem. First unit is pretty meh, and second unit is the same. Surprisingly, Toews hasn't killed many penalties in Chicago. You would think his defensive resume would mean he would be good at it, but the two years he did it in any real capacity (10-11 and 11-12), the Chicago units were well below the league average. With how offensively-leaning your forwards are, it's not a surprise that your penalty kill is somewhat weak.

Toews has been a regular PKer for 5 seasons now (since 2010). Quenneville likes to play bottom six guys on the first unit so Toews has always been 2nd unit, primarily with Marian Hossa. Those two are quite the SH threat. He is in a similar situation here with a partner like Kurri. Considering he's only playing 4th line minutes and his face off prowess, I think he is fine on an ATD 2nd unit.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

'Decent' defensively? 'Decent' scoring? Brind'amour is legit second line center and about as elite third line two-way center as it gets. He's also elite defensively, and with both his wingers good+ defensively, that's not just 'decent' defensively. And compared to the offensive black holes that many third lines contain, it's also really good offensive line for a 3rd line.

Brind'amour would be a really bad second liner in a 28 team draft, but I agree he's a very good 3rd liner (even if he loses some of his statistical production by not playing on the PP). His wingers look pretty meh though.

Toews has been a regular PKer for 5 seasons now (since 2010). Quenneville likes to play bottom six guys on the first unit so Toews has always been 2nd unit, primarily with Marian Hossa. Those two are quite the SH threat. He is in a similar situation here with a partner like Kurri. Considering he's only playing 4th line minutes and his face off prowess, I think he is fine on an ATD 2nd unit.

Right. In the modern game, coaches just don't give strong even strength players large amounts of PK time. Team Canada didn't bring actual PK specialists from the NHL, instead they brought guys like Bergeron and Toews as all-round depth players and used them to kill penalties.

 

[MadArcand]

Brind'amour would be a really bad second liner in a 28 team draft, but I agree he's a very good 3rd liner (even if he loses some of his statistical production by not playing on the PP). His wingers look pretty meh though.

Eh, there's worse than him (no need to name them, you can see them in who came up at the same time as Brind'Amour in the top 60 project). But yes, he'd be near the bottom. Actually would probably be better as LW if in top-6 role.

I also wouldn't call Linden quite 'meh', but that's not particularly relevant to the overall point.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

'Decent' defensively? 'Decent' scoring? Brind'amour is legit second line center and about as elite third line two-way center as it gets. He's also elite defensively, and with both his wingers good+ defensively, that's not just 'decent' defensively. And compared to the offensive black holes that many third lines contain, it's also really good offensive line for a 3rd line.

Brind'Amour's VsX scores are strong for sure, but he scored over a third of his points on the power play in his career, and he's not on your power play here. Linden was similarly reliant on the power play for scoring, putting up 32.5% of his points on the power play. He's not on the PP. I don't know about Kilrea, but looking at the rosters of his teams he was usually the best LW on the team in Ottawa, making it likely he was PP player there, but I doubt he was in Toronto or Detroit. When we're comparing guys that aren't going to be playing on their respective power plays, VsX is of little use. We need to look at ES scoring and how they performed in the situation that they're going to be used in here. I'm not going to do the work, but if you can show that Brind'Amour and Linden were better ES scorers than most offense-leaning third liners, I'll revise my statement.

Why do you think a two-way line needs to have three great two-way guys to be two-way? Toews is elite defensively and gritty enough, Perry is gritty and Gagne is good defensively. That adds up to a gritty two-way line that can outscore most 4th lines easily.

If you were going to use it as a matchup line at all, I wouldn't want Perry on it. I guess my point was I don't see what scenario or particular use they serve.

A PK with Brind'Amour and Kurri can't be weak by definition

As for Lowe, he was the #1 defensive guy of a dynasty. I might swap him for Blake though, if that doesn't seem like overtaxing Blake.

A dynasty that gave up lots and lots of goals. I'm not a big fan of Kevin Lowe, that's mostly where the weak comment came from considering he's on a first unit. When Linden killed penalties for his teams, those teams were almost always below the league average in penalty killing. Despite two great building blocks to a great PK(Keith and Seabrook), Chicago's PK has struggled when Toews played a big part in it, finishing 25th and 27th in the league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Despite two great building blocks to a great PK(Keith and Seabrook), Chicago's PK has struggled when Toews played a big part in it, finishing 25th and 27th in the league.

What seasons were those? Was this before the players on Chicago hit their primes?

I agree with you about even strength scoring for the third liners, btw. Just from my own eyes, I saw Brind'amour got a lot of his points from deflections and rebounds in front of the net on the PP. That said, he's still a strong third liner and above average even strength scorer for a third line defensive player - just not as good as his overall stats (including the PP) would indicate.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

What seasons were those? Was this before the players on Chicago hit their primes?

I agree with you about even strength scoring for the third liners, btw. Just from my own eyes, I saw Brind'amour got a lot of his points from deflections and rebounds in front of the net on the PP. That said, he's still a strong third liner and above average even strength scorer for a third line defensive player - just not as good as his overall stats (including the PP) would indicate.

2010-11 and 2011-12, the two years after they won their first cup so they were definitely established by then.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

2010-11 and 2011-12, the two years after they won their first cup so they were definitely established by then.

Weird. I mean, I know they got crappy goaltending those years, so that was at least part of it.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Philadelphia Flyers
Coach: Jack Adams
Captain: Johnny Bucyk
Assistant Captains: Jim Schoenfeld, Larry Aurie

Bobby Hull-Vladimir Petrov-Theo Fleury
Johnny Bucyk-Jean Ratelle-Dany Heatley
John Madden-Don Luce-Larry Aurie
Al Secord-Troy Murray-Jimmy Ward
Lynn Patrick, Ken Linseman, Tom Anderson

Borje Salming-Mike Grant
Hod Stuart-Jim Schoenfeld
Gary Bergman-Glen Harmon
Miroslav Dvorak, Tom Anderson

Glenn Hall
Mikka Kiprusoff

PP1
Dany Heatley-Vladimir Petrov-Theo Fleury
Borje Salming-Bobby Hull

PP2
Johnny Bucyk-Jean Ratelle-Larry Aurie
Hod Stuart-Mike Grant

PK1
Don Luce-John Madden
Hod Stuart-Mike Grant

PK2
Troy Murray-Larry Aurie
Borje Salming-Mike Grant

PK3
Don Luce-John Madden
Gary Bergman-Glen Harmon​

Specifically looking for advice on captains/assistants, and what to do about pointmen on my second PP unit. Against teams that don't have a line really worth shutting down, we're considering dropping John Madden to 4th line center, removing Troy Murray from the lineup, and placing Lynn Patrick at 3rd line LW.

First ever review, so hopefully i don't veer off course much lol.


Overall, this is a solid team IMO. Here are my thoughts:


Coaching: Jack Adams
-Solid coach, slightly above average in a 28 team league. I'd put him just outside the top 10 all time personally (like 11-15). Reading up on him some during my coaching evals i found him to be a pretty hotheaded guy who was quite impulsive. Wasn't a fan of how he had personal vendetta's against a handful of players over the years (namely Ted Lindsay, which ended up leading to players leaving and him being fired) but nonetheless was a 3 time Cup champion after building a strong team in Detroit. Was the first coach ever to be suspended for a Cup finals for punching a ref, so that hotheaded nature might get him in trouble (interesting fact).

Leadership:
-Probably below average when looking at the rosters posted but not a big weakness. Bucyk is probably below average in terms of all time great Captains but i'm not overly familiar with him as a leader. Just going off the rosters and looking at who has C's. Same with Schoenfeld and Aurie.

First line:
Hull is an obvious monster. Tough to build around as one would know but he's the focal point and can shoulder the brunt of the top 6 scoring. Petrov is a #2 C, even in a 32 team draft but i do think it's a very solid fit with Hull's style so that helps. Same with Fluery at RW (more a #2 RW). Guy is one of the toughest all time players pound for pound. Like a never ending battery, he'll pest it up and can also make plays and score some goals. Can PK as well.

Second line:
Like the fit here. Bucyk is an elite corner man and very good playmaker and could fill the net as well, putting in rebounds. Ratelle, very solid #2 playmaker. He'll rack up some assists and had a brief partnership with Bucyk in real life (Boston). A big plus player on faceoffs. Heatley was a fantastic player in the first half of his career. Big goal scoring ability. Not going to do much defensively but Ratelle was decent enough and Bucyk, while not a good skater was always sound and hustled his arse off.

Third line:
Above average defensive shutdown line. Not going to do much offensively but most 3rd lines aren't built to do so. Aurie will have some trouble against bigger #1 LW's who can also skate and if he gets tangled up with bigger checking line guys, he'll have some real trouble IMO, but i like him overall as a player despite being tiny.

Fourth line:
Secord is a nice 4th line W. Tough as hell, can drop the gloves with the big boys and chip in offensively as a bottom 6'er. Murray, personally to me is overrated defensively as his 1 Selke win was the only time he got near the award, but don't take it the wrong way, he's still solid in his own end, plus a punishing checker. Like Secord, will score a few points as well as a 4th liner. Ward seems like a good fit as well. Scrappy al out guy. All in all, i like the make up of this line.

First pair:
Salming is slightly below average as a #1. Ranks right around 20 or so all time in my book, but overall i like the player. Here comes my biggest criticism of this team. Mike Grant as a top pair. I bring this up because i drafted the best Russian defender (and possibly best player overall) by a long shot in the 50's in Sologubov and he's generally discarded as a spare or MLD player by many because 50's Russian hockey was not highly thought of. Well Grant started his career in the early 1890's and ended at the turn of the century. 1890's Canadian hockey is very similiar to what 1950's Russian hockey would have been like. In fact TDMM (among others) was adamant about this point when discussing my player. Now i'm not dismissing Grant as a player because he was a pioneer and highly respected, but based on standards i was given by some very knowledgeable hockey historians here, i'd have to say Grant as a #2 is a big time stretch.

Second pair:
Stuart is essentially a better Grant but he played the decade later, which holds more water. And considering he was the best offensive force from the back end in the 1900's, he's a good #3. I really like Schoenfeld. Guy was a beast in his own end and an elite PK'er. It's a nice combo and they match up well.

Third pair:
Both Bergman and Harmon make for good 3rd pairing guys. No complaints here.

****One thing to note, i'm not sure by the bio's but are Grant and Stuart righties/lefties? I only ask because the other 4 starters on D are all left handed shots. I know some people put more stock than others into that, just something to think about.********

Goalies:
Glenn Hall is elite. You'll have a distinct to slight advantage over almost every team you face. He was a great pick when you drafted him later in the 2nd. Kippy is a decent backup, but given Hall is your #1, less important IMO.

Special Teams:
1st PP unit has everything you want. Big bomb from the point with Hull, a dedicated GS in Heatley, playmaker in Petrov and a scrappy do it all guy in Fluery. Salming played 62% of his teams PP% which is a decent amount, but his PP point totals are a bit underwhelming with 46 goals and 250 assists compared to other Dmen with similar PP usage #'s. All in all though, very good unit. You might want to think about moving Stuart up to the 1st unit. 2nd unit is solid.

I'm not sure why you don't have Schoenfeld on your 1st unit PK? Maybe a fat finger? He needs to be there IMO.


Things i like:
-Fit and combinations in the top 6 F group
-Good D and 3rd line checking group
-Physical nature of the bottom 6
-Glenn Hall

Things i don't like:
-Mike Grant as a #2
-1st and 3rd RW's are very small and might have trouble vs bigger all time greats (although great players themselves)
-A bit light on leadership but not terrible
-Lots of LH shots on D (much more minor though)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Leadership:
-Probably below average when looking at the rosters posted but not a big weakness. Bucyk is probably below average in terms of all time great Captains but i'm not overly familiar with him as a leader. Just going off the rosters and looking at who has C's. Same with Schoenfeld and Aurie.

Bucyk's time as captain of the Bruins: John Bucyk, 1966–67; 1973–77. (Every team's wikipedia page lists their team captains by years). Yeah, nothing to write home about at this level.

First pair:
Salming is slightly below average as a #1. Ranks right around 20 or so all time in my book, but overall i like the player. Here comes my biggest criticism of this team. Mike Grant as a top pair. I bring this up because i drafted the best Russian defender (and possibly best player overall) by a long shot in the 50's in Sologubov and he's generally discarded as a spare or MLD player by many because 50's Russian hockey was not highly thought of. Well Grant started his career in the early 1890's and ended at the turn of the century. 1890's Canadian hockey is very similiar to what 1950's Russian hockey would have been like. In fact TDMM (among others) was adamant about this point when discussing my player. Now i'm not dismissing Grant as a player because he was a pioneer and highly respected, but based on standards i was given by some very knowledgeable hockey historians here, i'd have to say Grant as a #2 is a big time stretch.

I have a feeling you were talking about Grant. The thing is that there was significant overlap between Grant's career and Harvey Pulford's, and a good case could be made that Grant was better at that point (while Pulford continued to play into the stronger 1900s)

 

[BraveCanadian]

Bucyk's time as captain of the Bruins: John Bucyk, 1966–67; 1973–77. (Every team's wikipedia page lists their team captains by years). Yeah, nothing to write home about at this level.

That isn't really fair because they didn't have a player wearing the C during a lot of that time if I am not mistaken.

Bucyk and was it Espo (or Green?) that were wearing A's instead.

Does anyone know why that is?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

That isn't really fair because they didn't have a player wearing the C during a lot of that time if I am not mistaken.

Bucyk and was it Espo (or Green?) that were wearing A's instead.

Does anyone know why that is?

There was a thread on the history board recently about it, but I don't remember anyone having an answer.

I also think that thread said Bucyk was the first player to hold the Stanley Cup after they won too so I guess you can consider him the unofficial captain. Bobby Orr praised his leadership in his book, but said he was more of a lead by example than rah rah or speech kind of guy.

 

[BraveCanadian]

There was a thread on the history board recently about it, but I don't remember anyone having an answer.

I also think that thread said Bucyk was the first player to hold the Stanley Cup after they won too so I guess you can consider him the unofficial captain. Bobby Orr praised his leadership in his book, but said he was more of a lead by example than rah rah or speech kind of guy.

Yeah I know he was the unofficial captain and was the first to get the Cup out of respect to him.. I read that elsewhere too.

Was just curious if anyone knew why they didn't have an official captain for quite a while there.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

First ever review, so hopefully i don't veer off course much lol.

First off, thanks for the review. For your first review, it was very constructive and well thought out. Definitely better than the first reviews I ever did. I agree with most of it.

Leadership:
-Probably below average when looking at the rosters posted but not a big weakness. Bucyk is probably below average in terms of all time great Captains but i'm not overly familiar with him as a leader. Just going off the rosters and looking at who has C's. Same with Schoenfeld and Aurie

I agree, I have a bunch of guys that were captains for a short period of time (Bucyk, Schoenfeld, Fleury, Bergman, Aurie), but none were really a legendary leader or anything like that.

First line:
Hull is an obvious monster. Tough to build around as one would know but he's the focal point and can shoulder the brunt of the top 6 scoring. Petrov is a #2 C, even in a 32 team draft but i do think it's a very solid fit with Hull's style so that helps. Same with Fluery at RW (more a #2 RW). Guy is one of the toughest all time players pound for pound. Like a never ending battery, he'll pest it up and can also make plays and score some goals. Can PK as well.

It was tough to find guys to fit with Hull, because with him fit is more important than skill. I think I've re-created an environment where he can succeed. He noted that he played his best when he was playing alongside Phil Esposito and Chico Maki, and his linemates are pretty similar. Petrov is a big, goal-scoring center that, like Esposito, is an underrated playmaker. Maki and Fleury were both speedy, gritty guys that could backcheck a bit. In addition, the line is in the mold of the one that Petrov succeeded in. He played with a puck-dominant left wing that would like to carry the puck (Kharlamov) and a gritty guy on his right. In Hull and Fleury, he has much of the same. I think Fleury is a solid first liner here considering his VsX(21st among right wings in 7 year weighted) in addition to his scrappiness.

First pair:
Salming is slightly below average as a #1. Ranks right around 20 or so all time in my book, but overall i like the player. Here comes my biggest criticism of this team. Mike Grant as a top pair. I bring this up because i drafted the best Russian defender (and possibly best player overall) by a long shot in the 50's in Sologubov and he's generally discarded as a spare or MLD player by many because 50's Russian hockey was not highly thought of. Well Grant started his career in the early 1890's and ended at the turn of the century. 1890's Canadian hockey is very similiar to what 1950's Russian hockey would have been like. In fact TDMM (among others) was adamant about this point when discussing my player. Now i'm not dismissing Grant as a player because he was a pioneer and highly respected, but based on standards i was given by some very knowledgeable hockey historians here, i'd have to say Grant as a #2 is a big time stretch.

Grant is really my #3 defenseman, and Hod Stuart is my #2. I prefer to split up my two best defensemen (in this case Salming and Stuart) on my top two pairings instead of stacking the top pairing. Just a preference that I've observed is more effective in the NHL IMO.

I think the important distinction to make between Grant and Sologubov is that Grant was playing against the best players in the world during his era. All of the best players were in Canada. For Sologubov, he never played against the best. Sologubov played in the WC from 1955-1961, and in 1963. The Canadians finished above the Soviets in 1955, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961. The Soviets finished ahead in 1956, 1957, and 1963. The Canadian rosters for these years can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_national_ice_hockey_team_rosters

It's not a group of household names. The best guys on those teams were maybe able to crack an NHL roster for a few games, were young players that went on to decent NHL careers many years later, or guys that had recently retired from the NHL. This is the biggest problem that people in the ATD and HOH boards have about Europeans from Sologubov's era. They were competitive with Canadian teams that could not stick permanently in the NHL, let alone be good players in the league. Is it possible that one or two of the stars from Europe could have been at least regular NHL players? Yeah. But on the whole, their teams were about equal to teams composed of guys that couldn't make the NHL.

Your comparison of 1950s Soviets to 1890s Canadian hockey is interesting. It requires the concession that it's not fair to punish the Soviets because hockey had been invented in Canada 50 years earlier, and therefore they had a head start. In the past, ATD canon has suggested that it is fair to punish them, and players should be evaluated against the best players in the world of their time, regardless of the developmental paths of different hockey nations. You can argue that we shouldn't punish the Soviets, but I'm not one that agrees with that school of thought. If I did, then I definitely would not have taken Grant as high as I did (I wouldn't have taken him at all). The reason Grant is taken this high and Sologubov this low is because it's been accepted in the ATD that it is fair to punish the Soviets, since Grant played against the best of his era and Sologubov didn't.

****One thing to note, i'm not sure by the bio's but are Grant and Stuart righties/lefties? I only ask because the other 4 starters on D are all left handed shots. I know some people put more stock than others into that, just something to think about.********

I tried to find out which hand they were, but I couldn't find any indication either way. There aren't any action shots of them playing, unfortunately. I think it's definitely ideal to have a good left-right balance, some people don't realize how difficult it can be to break the puck out on your backhand with a forechecker bearing down on you.

I'm not sure why you don't have Schoenfeld on your 1st unit PK? Maybe a fat finger? He needs to be there IMO.

Yeah, that's a typo. I have Mike Grant on both the first and second PK units. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Pittsburgh Hornets​

GM: 87and71
Head Coach: Scotty Bowman
Captain: Ted Lindsay
Alternate Captain: Daniel Alfredsson
Alternate Captain: Scott Niedermayer


Ted Lindsay C - Adam Oates - Mike Bossy
Ilya Kovalchuk - Pavel Datsyuk - Daniel Alfredsson A
Bob Pulford - Mats Sundin - Dirk Graham
Bob Bourne - Bernie Nicholls - Terry O'Reilly
Boris Mayorov - Craig MacTavish - Boris Mayorov

Serge Savard - Scott Niedermayer A
Flash Hollett - Red Dutton
Viktor Kuzkin - Ken Morrow
Nikolai Sologubov Willie Mitchell

Tom Barrasso
Hap Holmes


Power Play 1:

Ted Lindsay - Adam Oates - Mike Bossy
Ilya Kovalchuk - Scott Niedermayer


Power Play 2:

Mats Sundin - Pavel Datsyuk - Daniel Alfredsson
Flash Hollett - Viktor Kuzkin


Penalty Kill 1:

Bob Pulford - Dirk Graham
Serge Savard - Red Dutton

Penalty Kill 2:

Mats Sundin/Bob Bourne/Craig MacTavish - Daniel Alfredsson
Viktor Kuzkin - Ken Morrow
​

Coach

Scotty Bowman's the greatest of all-time, so you've certainly got an advantage here.

Forwards

Very dangerous first line here. Bossy is an elite sniper, and to have Lindsay serving as the glue guy of the line makes the offense that much better. They've got all the elements to be very successful. Probably one of the strongest first lines in the draft, and is this team's biggest strength. Lindsay wasn't a great defensive player, but he'll hustle on the backcheck, and Oates' defensive ability make it solid defensively for a first line as well.

This modern line certainly doesn't lack talent. Datsyuk and Alfredsson are both strong two-way players that will make up for Kovy's defensive deficiencies. I would prefer that Alfredsson not be the guy providing toughness on the line, but the way the line is composed they don't appear that they'll be a cycling line, they're going to score off the transition. Kovalchuk and Datsyuk are both puck-dominant players, with Kovalchuk preferring to carry the puck himself and Datsyuk liking to hold onto the puck and use his vision. That might not be the perfect fit together, but Datsyuk's adaptability shouldn't make it too much of a problem.

Pulford and Graham are 2/3 of a prototypical tough, shutdown 3rd line in the ATD, and then there's Sundin. He's definitely strong offensively for a third line center, but prevents the line from being able to be used as a shutdown line, as his defensive credentials at this level are pretty average. I probably would have either went for a more two-way guy at center, or went for more offensive wingers with Sundin. Especially considering the center has the most defensive responsibilities of any of the forward positions. They're three talented players for their positions, but I'm not sure about the fit as a unit. I guess if you want to make a shutdown unit, you can shift Datsyuk down to the third line, and bump Sundin up to the second.

4th line provides a little bit of everything. Some offense, physicality, and two-way play without being elite in any one area.

Defense

When you go with forwards with your first two picks, your #1 defenseman is going to suffer. I actually think Savard is a better player than Niedermayer, despite the fact that you took Niedermayer first. In a 32 team draft, Savard is probably one of the last guys to pass as a #1, so in a 28 team draft he's more of an elite #2. I stated my opinion on Niedermayer earlier, he's a good #2 here. The lack of a true #1 hurts you here. They do fit together stylistically.

I see the two guys on your second pairing as more two solid #4s, I don't see either as a real #3 in this draft. Dutton brings solid offensive numbers, but was known as more of a defensive guy so that should help with Hollett's propensity to jump up into the play. Like your first pairing, the lack of a real #3 hurts it and makes it below average.

I don't know much about Kuzkin. What years were his Soviet AS team selections? That matters a lot in determining his all-time greatness. Morrow is a solid, PKing #6.

Goalies

When you didn't participate in the goalie run earlier in the draft, you were definitely better off waiting to get a goalie. You got good value on Barrasso considering where other goalies were taken, but he's still a below average goalie here.

PP

Very dangerous first unit. Second unit is pretty good. What are Kuzkin's offensive numbers like? 70 goals in 530 Soviet league games and 18 goals in 169 international games don't seem like ATD PP quality.

PK

Two very good first unit forwards, defensemen are solid too. Forwards make it a strong unit. I would take Sundin out of that rotation and make it just Bourne-Alfredsson. I would also probably put Niedermayer on the second unit ahead of Kuzkin.

I like: Very strong top six, especially the top line. 2/3 of a very good shutdown third line(will be elite if you decide to move Datsyuk down in late-game situations), strong PP units, strong PKing forwards, Bowman is the best coach ever

I don't like: Lack of a #1 and #3 defenseman, goaltending is below average, will Kovalchuk/Datsyuk work on the same line?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Coach

Scotty Bowman's the greatest of all-time, so you've certainly got an advantage here.

Forwards

Very dangerous first line here. Bossy is an elite sniper, and to have Lindsay serving as the glue guy of the line makes the offense that much better. They've got all the elements to be very successful. Probably one of the strongest first lines in the draft, and is this team's biggest strength. Lindsay wasn't a great defensive player, but he'll hustle on the backcheck, and Oates' defensive ability make it solid defensively for a first line as well.

Thanks. Was happy to start W-W given the choices and then happy Oates fell a bit from last year. I wanted him or Thornton to C this line. Couldn't be happier with how it turned out

This modern line certainly doesn't lack talent. Datsyuk and Alfredsson are both strong two-way players that will make up for Kovy's defensive deficiencies. I would prefer that Alfredsson not be the guy providing toughness on the line, but the way the line is composed they don't appear that they'll be a cycling line, they're going to score off the transition. Kovalchuk and Datsyuk are both puck-dominant players, with Kovalchuk preferring to carry the puck himself and Datsyuk liking to hold onto the puck and use his vision. That might not be the perfect fit together, but Datsyuk's adaptability shouldn't make it too much of a problem.

Agree on everything here. I do think, however, as i posted in my write up, that given the real life chemistry between Kovy and Datsyuk, on the international stage, they should be very effective in the offensive zone. Also, when Sundin plays on this unit, he'll have real life chemistry with Alfredsson, again on the international stage.

Pulford and Graham are 2/3 of a prototypical tough, shutdown 3rd line in the ATD, and then there's Sundin. He's definitely strong offensively for a third line center, but prevents the line from being able to be used as a shutdown line, as his defensive credentials at this level are pretty average. I probably would have either went for a more two-way guy at center, or went for more offensive wingers with Sundin. Especially considering the center has the most defensive responsibilities of any of the forward positions. They're three talented players for their positions, but I'm not sure about the fit as a unit. I guess if you want to make a shutdown unit, you can shift Datsyuk down to the third line, and bump Sundin up to the second.

I know my write up below the roster was a bit long winded but i do try to address what you brought up here. The 2nd and 3rd line C's will all depend on matchups. I fully anticipate using Sundin on the 2nd line when i need to put out a truly dominant shutdown line vs some of the elite #1 scoring lines in the draft. If the Selke award had been in existence when Pulford played, i'd likely have 3 Selke winners when Datsyuk is on the 3rd line. I didn't plan on targeting a player of Sundin's offensive skill set for the 3rd line, but when he fell to 250, i couldn't pass up the value. Again, you'll see a lot of line changes with Bowman and i'm sure he'll use those 2 in the best way possible based on matchup needs. Another factor to consider, that some might overlook as well, is Bowman's ability to out think the opposing coaches and mix lines superbly.

4th line provides a little bit of everything. Some offense, physicality, and two-way play without being elite in any one area.

Defense

When you go with forwards with your first two picks, your #1 defenseman is going to suffer. I actually think Savard is a better player than Niedermayer, despite the fact that you took Niedermayer first. In a 32 team draft, Savard is probably one of the last guys to pass as a #1, so in a 28 team draft he's more of an elite #2. I stated my opinion on Niedermayer earlier, he's a good #2 here. The lack of a true #1 hurts you here. They do fit together stylistically.

Agreed on all points. The one thing i'd like to add, was that Bowman was extremely high on Savard as a player (ranked him higher than Robinson and Potvin). Now we all know both of those guys are more valuable than Serge, but it's nice to know that my coach thought extremely highly of Savard. Same thing with Nieds. But i absolutely agree that i have a very low #1 and a really good #2.

I see the two guys on your second pairing as more two solid #4s, I don't see either as a real #3 in this draft. Dutton brings solid offensive numbers, but was known as more of a defensive guy so that should help with Hollett's propensity to jump up into the play. Like your first pairing, the lack of a real #3 hurts it and makes it below average.

I'd like to think Dutton would be an average #3 here IMHO. He's a HOF'er that was dominant (check his bio) in his own end and was no slouch offensively. Made the HOF despite never winning a SC and not producing elite offensive numbers. Hollett is definitely a #4, although given he retired as the all time leading defenceman in scoring, would be a pretty solid #4. Again, just my opinion based on what i was able to dig up

I don't know much about Kuzkin. What years were his Soviet AS team selections? That matters a lot in determining his all-time greatness. Morrow is a solid, PKing #6.

Kuzkin:
-3 Olympic Gold Medals (one of only 6 hockey players to have 3)
-8 Gold Medals at the World Championships
-Captain of the Soviet Team at the Summit Series
-Inducted into the IIHF Hall of Fame in 2005.
-2 First Team Soviet League All-Star Selections
-4 Second Team Soviet League All-Star Selections
-70 goals in 530 Soviet League games
-18 goals in 169 international games

Goalies

When you didn't participate in the goalie run earlier in the draft, you were definitely better off waiting to get a goalie. You got good value on Barrasso considering where other goalies were taken, but he's still a below average goalie here.

Yep, won't disagree here at all. Once we got down into the mid pack of goalies i knew i'd be waiting. Better value elsewhere and after i took Bowman, i was targeting Barrasso (Bowman drafted Tommy B in 83 and won 2 SC with him in Pittsburgh) exclusively.

PP

Very dangerous first unit. Second unit is pretty good. What are Kuzkin's offensive numbers like? 70 goals in 530 Soviet league games and 18 goals in 169 international games don't seem like ATD PP quality.

I think Hollett given his offensive prowess is a really good 2nd unit PP QB. I put Kuzkin on that unit based on some advice from TDMM to be honest.

PK

Two very good first unit forwards, defensemen are solid too. Forwards make it a strong unit. I would take Sundin out of that rotation and make it just Bourne-Alfredsson. I would also probably put Niedermayer on the second unit ahead of Kuzkin.

Yeah Bourne will be the go to guy on the 2nd unit, but Sundin can rotate in from time to time as he has a darn good PK scoring resume

I like: Very strong top six, especially the top line. 2/3 of a very good shutdown third line(will be elite if you decide to move Datsyuk down in late-game situations), strong PP units, strong PKing forwards, Bowman is the best coach ever

I don't like: Lack of a #1 and #3 defenseman, goaltending is below average, will Kovalchuk/Datsyuk work on the same line?

Thanks for the honest write up Billy! It's much appreciated and well thought out. Look forward to getting a few more done myself.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Edmonton Eskimos

Coach : Jacques Lemaire
Assistant : Pete Muldoon

Captain - Lanny McDonald
Alt : Adam Foote, Woody Dumart

Woody Dumart --- Stan Mikita --- Cam Neely
Vincent Damphousse --- Peter Stastny --- Lanny McDonald
Harry Watson --- Igor Larionov --- Marian Gaborik
George Mantha --- Pit Lepine --- Jerry Toppazzini

Ex - Glen Skov (C/LW), Billy Boucher (RW)

Bill Quackenbush --- Tim Horton
Si Griffis --- Adam Foote
Hamby Shore --- Gennady Tsygankov

Ex - Wade Redden (D)

Ed Belfour
John Vanbiesbrouck

PP1: Si Griffis - Bill Quackenbush - Vincent Damphousse - Stan Mikita - Cam Neely
PP2: Hamby Shore - Tim Horton - Marian Gaborik - Peter Stastny - Lanny McDonald

PK1: Bill Quackenbush - Tim Horton - Pit Lepine - Jerry Toppazzini
PK2: Gennady Tsygankov - Adam Foote - Stan Mikita - Woody Dumart

​

Coach

Lemaire's a worthy ATD coach here, but he needs the right kind of team to succeed. I think you've done a pretty good job of giving him that, with a good amount of two-way play throughout your forward corps.

First Line

Mikita is a great starting point and is easy to build around. Dumart is a very strong glue guy; his and Mikita's combined two-way play will make it one of the better defensive first lines in the draft. I think Neely is drafted too high pretty regularly, but he's the kind of sniper that is needed to capitalize on Mikita's playmaking. Personally, I probably would have went for a more all-out offense guy instead of a power forward like Neely because Dumart has the glue guy qualities pretty well covered. They'll be a physical bunch too.

How much of Damphousse's best offensive years came at left wing compared to center? Could impact how effective he is on the wing here. Vinny and McDonald bring a good mix of toughness and two-way play. Stastny is a strong #2 center in a 28 team draft.

This line isn't a typical third line, more like another scoring line with some two-way play, but it has all the elements to achieve its goal. Watson works as a glue guy, Larionov is good for a third line center (he definitely deserved the fall he had this year IMO), and Gaborik is the finisher. Normally, I'd question how a player like Gaborik would work with a coach like Lemaire, but considering they worked fine together in the real world, they should be okay. Like in real life, Gabby is one of the few all-out offensive guys surrounded by two-way play.

Solid checking unit here. Lepine would be a good 3rd line center, so he's very strong on the third line. They'll be good as a shutdown unit, but won't chip in too much offense.

Defense

Very strong first pairing. Horton is a middle tier #1, and Quackenbush is a low tier #1. Having two #1s on the same pairing is an embarrassment of riches. Although neither one is elite, they are a very strong pairing.

Second pairing is solid, they complement each other well. Neither is elite. I'm a bit lower on Adam Foote than most are; his lack of any good voting finishes scares me. Normally, I'd write it off considering he was a defensive defenseman in an era where they get little recognition, but he was the guy on a dynasty team, so he was very well known. I'd prefer him as a #5, but he's okay here.

Hamby Shore is a guy I don't really have a good read on. Seems like he was a good rushing defenseman that was physical. Tsygankov complements him stylistically. An average 3rd pairing.

Goalies

Belfour is an above average goalie, should give you an advantage in most matchups.

PP

First unit seems to lack offensive punch on the wings. Offensively, Damphousse and Neely are more like second liners than first liners. Second unit is okay, like the first unit the wingers are kinda meh.

PK

Two very strong penalty killing units, not a surprise with the emphasis that you put on two-way play from your forwards.

I like: Two-way forwards are a good fit with your coach, above average goalie, very strong top pairing, strong PK units

I don't like: top 6 wingers lack offensive punch, PP units are a bit weak, not a huge Adam Foote fan

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This line isn't a typical third line, more like another scoring line with some two-way play, but it has all the elements to achieve its goal. Watson works as a glue guy, Larionov is good for a third line center (he definitely deserved the fall he had this year IMO), and Gaborik is the finisher. Normally, I'd question how a player like Gaborik would work with a coach like Lemaire, but considering they worked fine together in the real world, they should be okay. Like in real life, Gabby is one of the few all-out offensive guys surrounded by two-way play.

Well, Gabby hated playing under Lemaire and was desperate to get out of Minnesota. I believe he signed for less than Minnesota was offering him just to get away from Lemaire. I mean, a player can still excel for a coach he hated (basically every one of Keenan's players), so maybe it doesn't matter.

Second pairing is solid, they complement each other well. Neither is elite. I'm a bit lower on Adam Foote than most are; his lack of any good voting finishes scares me. Normally, I'd write it off considering he was a defensive defenseman in an era where they get little recognition, but he was the guy on a dynasty team, so he was very well known. I'd prefer him as a #5, but he's okay here.

A lot of us agree with you about Adam Foote. It's usually the newer GMs who draft him this high. I would also prefer him as a #5. On the other hand, he was selected to multiple Team Canadas and played well in them.

Hamby Shore is a guy I don't really have a good read on.

He actually has a pretty good wikipedia page, which I think shows enough recognition to make him a worthy bottom pairing guy. For once, wikipedia did a better job than ATD GMs at uncovering a player's recognition.

 

[Stoneberg]

Sorry for the delay gents, here are the Citadels:

Halifax Citadels

GM: Stoneberg
Coach: Pat Burns
Captian: Armstrong
Alternate Captains: Smith, St. Louis

Roster
Roy Conacher - Marcel Dionne - Wayne Cashman
Alf Smith (A) - Bernie Morris - Martin St. Louis (A)
Bruce Stuart - Edgar Laprade - George Armstrong (C)
Rick Nash - Pete Mahovlich - Mario Tremblay

Ching Johnson - Eddie Shore
Allan Stanley - Terry Harper
Frank Patrick - Kimmo Timonen

Terry Sawchuk
Alec Connell

Spares: Reggie Fleming - F/D, Jack Portland - D, Jaroslav Jirik - W, Art Chapman - C

1st PP Unit
Conacher - Dionne - Smith
Patrick - Shore

2nd PP Unit
Nash - Morris - St. Louis
Stanley - Timonen

PK Forwards
Laprade - Armstrong
Mahovlich - St. Louis

PK Defensemen
Johnson - Harper
Stanley - Shore
​

Thinking of switching Patrick and Harper.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Coach

Lemaire's a worthy ATD coach here, but he needs the right kind of team to succeed. I think you've done a pretty good job of giving him that, with a good amount of two-way play throughout your forward corps.

First Line

Mikita is a great starting point and is easy to build around. Dumart is a very strong glue guy; his and Mikita's combined two-way play will make it one of the better defensive first lines in the draft. I think Neely is drafted too high pretty regularly, but he's the kind of sniper that is needed to capitalize on Mikita's playmaking. Personally, I probably would have went for a more all-out offense guy instead of a power forward like Neely because Dumart has the glue guy qualities pretty well covered. They'll be a physical bunch too.

How much of Damphousse's best offensive years came at left wing compared to center? Could impact how effective he is on the wing here. Vinny and McDonald bring a good mix of toughness and two-way play. Stastny is a strong #2 center in a 28 team draft.

This line isn't a typical third line, more like another scoring line with some two-way play, but it has all the elements to achieve its goal. Watson works as a glue guy, Larionov is good for a third line center (he definitely deserved the fall he had this year IMO), and Gaborik is the finisher. Normally, I'd question how a player like Gaborik would work with a coach like Lemaire, but considering they worked fine together in the real world, they should be okay. Like in real life, Gabby is one of the few all-out offensive guys surrounded by two-way play.

Solid checking unit here. Lepine would be a good 3rd line center, so he's very strong on the third line. They'll be good as a shutdown unit, but won't chip in too much offense.

Defense

Very strong first pairing. Horton is a middle tier #1, and Quackenbush is a low tier #1. Having two #1s on the same pairing is an embarrassment of riches. Although neither one is elite, they are a very strong pairing.

Second pairing is solid, they complement each other well. Neither is elite. I'm a bit lower on Adam Foote than most are; his lack of any good voting finishes scares me. Normally, I'd write it off considering he was a defensive defenseman in an era where they get little recognition, but he was the guy on a dynasty team, so he was very well known. I'd prefer him as a #5, but he's okay here.

Hamby Shore is a guy I don't really have a good read on. Seems like he was a good rushing defenseman that was physical. Tsygankov complements him stylistically. An average 3rd pairing.

Goalies

Belfour is an above average goalie, should give you an advantage in most matchups.

PP

First unit seems to lack offensive punch on the wings. Offensively, Damphousse and Neely are more like second liners than first liners. Second unit is okay, like the first unit the wingers are kinda meh.

PK

Two very strong penalty killing units, not a surprise with the emphasis that you put on two-way play from your forwards.

I like: Two-way forwards are a good fit with your coach, above average goalie, very strong top pairing, strong PK units

I don't like: top 6 wingers lack offensive punch, PP units are a bit weak, not a huge Adam Foote fan

Thanks for the review, I'll take a stab at your team later tonight.

-On the Adam Foote issue, as TDMM said he's been selected to several international teams which shows his value to a team according to the team general manager and brain trust. He's someone who doesn't worry about rushing up the ice and will make a perfect fit for Griffis who was known for his rushes. Obviously his lack or voting is a tad worrisome, but his international helps bridge the gap in my mind.

-After committing to that top pairing and centers I knew my wingers wouldn't be great, but I think they're serviceable if a bit below average. But I think my superb center depth will help balance that out. Mikita is an elite top tier guy, Stastny is a lower tier 1, top tier 2. Larionov is a lower tier 2, top tier 3 and Lepine a mid 3, top tier 4.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Philadelphia Flyers
Coach: Jack Adams
Captain: Johnny Bucyk
Assistant Captains: Jim Schoenfeld, Larry Aurie

Bobby Hull-Vladimir Petrov-Theo Fleury
Johnny Bucyk-Jean Ratelle-Dany Heatley
John Madden-Don Luce-Larry Aurie
Al Secord-Troy Murray-Jimmy Ward
Lynn Patrick, Ken Linseman, Tom Anderson

Borje Salming-Mike Grant
Hod Stuart-Jim Schoenfeld
Gary Bergman-Glen Harmon
Miroslav Dvorak, Tom Anderson

Glenn Hall
Mikka Kiprusoff

PP1
Dany Heatley-Vladimir Petrov-Theo Fleury
Borje Salming-Bobby Hull

PP2
Johnny Bucyk-Jean Ratelle-Larry Aurie
Hod Stuart-Mike Grant

PK1
Don Luce-John Madden
Hod Stuart-Jim Schoenfeld

PK2
Troy Murray-Larry Aurie
Borje Salming-Mike Grant

PK3
Don Luce-John Madden
Gary Bergman-Glen Harmon​

Specifically looking for advice on captains/assistants, and what to do about pointmen on my second PP unit. Against teams that don't have a line really worth shutting down, we're considering dropping John Madden to 4th line center, removing Troy Murray from the lineup, and placing Lynn Patrick at 3rd line LW.

First Line

-I think you've built a pretty solid line around Hull, the only really concern I have is Fleury being on the top line. He's pretty weak for a first liner and I'd have questions about him on your second line. As I understand it, Hull liked to have the puck on his stick, so I think he will mesh well with Petrov who will help dig the puck out of the concerns and let Hull tee it up. Only real positive defensive player on the line is Petrov, but ultimately isn't a big detractor for me. Overall a good line, just Fleury seems out of place.

Second Line

I love your second line and can't really find anything substance to attack. Good job

Third Line

I like your third line, a traditional checking line good amout of offence coming from it. The only issue I have would be Madden, I think he's be a third liner in a slightly bigger draft but in this one I have my doubts

Fourth Line

Looks like a good energy line. Don't really know enough to comment too much.

First Pairing

Salming is a mid number one to me, Grant I'm less sure on. Obviously he's an old guy and your bio paints a lovely picture of his ability so I'll settle on average number 2 to lower tier maybe. Solid pairing, chemistry wise they look okay.

Second Pairing

Not too much to say, but looks like a very solid pairing

Third Pairing

See above

Goaltenders

Hall is a very good goalie and you'll have a clear advantage in most matchups

 

[ImporterExporter]

Hartford Whalers

Coach: Pat Quinn
Assistant coach: Dave Tippett

John LeClair - Wayne Gretzky (C) - Jari Kurri
Gary Roberts (A) - Russell Bowie - Bill Mosienko
Hec Kilrea - Rod Brind'Amour (A) - Trevor Linden
Simon Gagne - Jonathan Toews - Corey Perry
Vincent Lecavalier, Patrick Sharp

Brian Leetch - Moose Johnson
Kevin Lowe - Rob Blake
Steve Smith - Rob Ramage
Erik Karlsson

Tony Esposito
Tim Thomas

PP1: Brian Leetch - Rob Blake - John LeClair - Wayne Gretzky - Jari Kurri
PP2: Moose Johnson - Rob Ramage - Gary Roberts - Russell Bowie - Bill Mosienko

PK1: Kevin Lowe - Moose Johnson - Rod Brind'Amour - Trevor Linden
PK2: Steve Smith - Rob Blake - Jonathan Toews - Jari Kurri

​

Coaching/Leadership:

Pat Quinn is a below average coach in this, but his style meshes pretty well with your roster IMO, which adds some value. Not the biggest fan of Quinn personally but i do like the fit so you did well there IMO.

Leadership is solid, but not spectacular. Gretzky is obviously THE name in hockey but i generally think he's a little overrated as a C. Certainly he's worthy given his resume but i'd put him about mid pick when looking at the rosters. Brind'Amour is a solid A. I always liked his game, he was a hard worker who could lead by example. Roberts seems like a below average A in an all time sense, as i'm not sure he ever served at more than an A in real life. Could be wrong though. Overall, an average group i'd think.

First Line:

Gretzky-Kurri. Been seen a bunch of times, but it obviously worked in real life and no reason to think it won't here for you. I like LeClair as a big body who can crash the net and work in the corners. Expect big offense here. Kurri was a tremendous 2 way players as well so you have some defensive element as well.

Second Line:

Very well put together unit. Roberts is a grinder. Bowie was one of the early great goal scorers and all around offensive stars. Mosienko could fly and that speed will keep D's honest. The only concern is that the line seems a bit soft outside of Roberts, when reading more in depth on Bowie and Mosienko, but again, i really like the fit here.

Third Line:

Brindy is the anchor here. Solid offense for a 3rd line player and also was a highly talented defensive player and faceoff guy. Linden, more of the same, although he's not the defensive player that Brindo was. Had a 5th in Selke one season and was never really recognized other than that. Decent PK'er as well. Great competitor.

Fourth Line:

Very modern unit, and probably a bit overmatched with some of the more established units but not bad by any stretch. Toews deserves a #4 spot by now. He's a wonderful secondary leader for a young guy and is very solid defensively. Perry is the GS player here. Gagne, dealt with a lot of injuries but when healthy makes for a nice 4th line ATD'er. Would personally like to see more physicality on the 4th unit.

First Pairing:

Leetch is slightly below average as a #1 but provides a ton of offense from the blueline and wasn't helpless on D like some of the other high scoring Dmen. Moose Johnson is a solid #2. They fit well together and make for a decent 1st pairing, especially considering you have Gretzky and Kurri.

Second Pairing:

Lowe and Blake is a wonderful pairing. Straight D and good O with a physical demeanor. They fit perfectly IMO and give you a really talented top 4 here.

Third Pairing:

Again, the fit is right. Not overly high on Ramage as i think he was often mistake prone but Smith well help mitigate that as a solid and safe player in his own zone.

Goalie:

Not the biggest Espo fan. His playoff resume really scares me off him, but he was a pretty impressive regular season guy. Multiple Vezina's, some close shaves with the Hart. Thomas was a good get as a backup just in case Espo runs into some shaky times in the postseason.

Special Teams:

Nasty first unit. One of the best, if not the best when considering you loaded up both Leetch and Blake on the point. LeClair will park his big ass in front of the net and Wayne/Kurri should work their magic well together. Second unit is decent, but nothing spectacular. Bowie is the biggest threat.

PK is decent. Kevin Lowe and Moose Johnson are solid. Brindy is a very good first unit guy, although i'd say Linden needs to be a 2nd unit player. Looks like he was at 27% usage during his career which is a pretty low # for a #1. Kurri makes for a great 2nd unit player and i agree that having him on both the top PP and PK unit would be a bit much given his sure to be big ES ice time.

Things I Like:

-Top 6 is pretty darn dynamic and will score some points for sure. The fit is right on both lines.
-1st unit PP is amazing
-C talent depth
-Top 4 Dman are among the better groups in the league.
-Fit of roster to coach makes sense

Things I Don't Like:

-Soft group of F's for the most part
-LW's are a sore spot
-PK overall is below average IMO
-Espo's playoff #'s (Thomas helps your cause some though as a backup)

 

[BillyShoe1721]

First Line

-I think you've built a pretty solid line around Hull, the only really concern I have is Fleury being on the top line. He's pretty weak for a first liner and I'd have questions about him on your second line. As I understand it, Hull liked to have the puck on his stick, so I think he will mesh well with Petrov who will help dig the puck out of the concerns and let Hull tee it up. Only real positive defensive player on the line is Petrov, but ultimately isn't a big detractor for me. Overall a good line, just Fleury seems out of place.

I think people are underrating Theo Fleury a bit. For his offense, he's 21st in 7 year weighted VsX among RWs (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1361409&page=5), he's gritty, and is at least solid defensively. Another thing to note with Fleury is that he was the driver of offense for almost all of his teams. For 12 straight years, he was a top 3 scorer on his team (1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2), leading in 7 of the years. Those teams tended to be pretty poor, so it's not as impressive to be leading them, but that also means that his VsX scores would likely be better had he been on even adequate teams.

Looking through the roster thread, I'd say he's better offensively than the following other first line RWs: Cournoyer, Neely, Cashman, Larmer, Gilbert, and Middleton. He's below average offensively, but combined with his toughness and in terms of a fit with Hull, I think he's fine.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think people are underrating Theo Fleury a bit. For his offense, he's 21st in 7 year weighted VsX among RWs (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1361409&page=5), he's gritty, and is at least solid defensively. Another thing to note with Fleury is that he was the driver of offense for almost all of his teams. For 12 straight years, he was a top 3 scorer on his team (1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2), leading in 7 of the years. Those teams tended to be pretty poor, so it's not as impressive to be leading them, but that also means that his VsX scores would likely be better had he been on even adequate teams.

On a better team, he may not be in a primary offensive role, right?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Sorry I'm late to the party.....

GM: Modo
Head Coach: Roger Nielson
Captain: Steve Yzerman
A.Captain: Steve Larmer
A.Captain: Sid Smith

Valeri Kharlamov - Steve Yzerman - Steve Larmer
Sid Smith - Mike Modano - Brett Hull
Yvon Lambert - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Ed Litzenberger
Brian Rolston - Tod Sloan - Pat Verbeek
x - Dick Irvin, Jan Erixon

Jack Stewart - Fern Flaman
Vitaly Davydov - "Bullet" Joe Simpson
Pat Stapleton - Don Awrey
x - Fred Lake, Oldrich Machac

Hugh Lehman
Gerry Cheevers

PP1: Kharlamov - Yzerman - Hull - Stewart - Simpson
PP2: Smith - Modano - Larmer - Stapleton - Flaman

PK1: Modano - Larmer - Flaman - Davydov
PK2: Litzenberger - Sloan - Awrey - Simpson
​

Coach

Neilson is an okay ATD coach, probably below average. He was certainly an innovator and a favorite among his players, but he never enjoyed any great success.

Forwards

When you spend your first two picks on your first line, you're definitely going to grab some talent. Yzerman is a strong first line center that brings everything you want, and Kharlamov is an elite left wing (even though I think he's been historically overrated and isn't as good as Makarov). Larmer brings the right skillset to complement these two, but his offense is pretty poor for a first line here. Considering the strength of his linemates, however, it's not as big of a deal. The first line is probably the biggest strength of this team. Larmer and Yzerman make them strong defensively.

Hull is an elite sniper, and would be a good first line winger so he's elite as a second liner. Modano is a solid #2 center that will help Hull away from the puck. Smith brings a little bit in terms of intangibles. One concern I have is that both Hull and Smith are clear shoot-first wingers; both have more goals than assists in their careers. Is Modano a pure enough playmaker to feed both of them? I can see Smith picking up the garbage from Hull's shots, so that works well.

You definitely went for an offensive third line built around Starshinov. I'm not sure that the wingers are a great fit for him though. Lambert works as a gritty corner man, but his offense is pretty weak if you're going for another scoring line. Litzenberger was a balanced offensive scorer in terms of shooting/passing, but Starshinov was a very goals-biased player. I don't think the playmaking is really here to maximize Starshinov's abilities. They'll score more than most third lines, but they'll be among the worst defensively.

The 4th line is an odd mix of talents. Sloan is a good offensive player for a 4th line, and has some grit, but not much compared to other 4th liners. Verbeek is a prototypical 4th line crash and banger. Rolston is a good special teams player. They're decent defensively and can pot some goals, but I'm not sure exactly what situation they'll be used in.

Defense

I see Stewart as more of a strong #2 rather than a #1, and Flaman is about an average #2. The lack of a real #1 hurts this pairing. They'll be very difficult to play against, with both guys being very physical. They'll give soft forwards some real trouble.

Why is Pat Stapleton on your 3rd pairing? He's very clearly your third best defenseman, and your second pairing suffers without him. I can see trying to have the balance of an offensive guy and defensive guy on each pairing, but if you're going to do that I'd put Simpson on the third pairing, and Stapleton on the second. As it stands now, the second pairing is below average, and the third pairing is elite because Pat Stapleton is a #3 defenseman.

Goalie

Lehman's a slightly below average starter, and Cheevers is an okay backup. Not a great tandem, but not terrible.

PP

Jack Stewart looks rather out of place on an ATD first unit powerplay. The forwards are a very, very dangerous group but Stewart is out of place. I would put Stapleton on the first unit ahead of him.

On the second unit, Flaman also looks quite out of place. If you're going to have Brian Rolston in your lineup, you should use him on the point on the power play. It gets one of Stewart/Flaman off the PP, and gives you a bomb from the point. Similarly, I would find a way to get Starshinov on your PP because he's a strong net presence. In order to give each unit a guy who plays in front and balance the units, I would go with:

Kharlamov-Yzerman-Starshinov
Stapleton-Simpson

Smith-Modano-Hull
Rolston-?

Maybe see if any of your other forwards can play the point on the PP because neither Stewart nor Flaman really belongs there.

PK

By taking Stewart off your PP, you can use him on the first unit PK where he should excel. Stewart-Flaman should be your first unit PK defensemen. Modano-Larmer works. Ideally I'd like Yzerman up there, but he shouldn't be on the first unit of everything. Like the PP, if you have Rolston in your lineup he should be on your PK. I would have Rolston-Yzerman as the second unit PK forwards, and Awrey-Davydov as the defensemen.

I like: Strong top line, good chemistry in the top six, good offensive third line
I don't like: Lack of a true #1, lack of a shutdown line, Stapleton on the third pairing, PP pointmen, special teams units need to be re-arranged

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hartford Whalers Review

Hartford Whalers

Coach: Pat Quinn
Assistant coach: Dave Tippett

John LeClair - Wayne Gretzky (C) - Jari Kurri
Gary Roberts (A) - Russell Bowie - Bill Mosienko
Hec Kilrea - Rod Brind'Amour (A) - Trevor Linden
Simon Gagne - Jonathan Toews - Corey Perry
Vincent Lecavalier, Patrick Sharp

Brian Leetch - Moose Johnson
Kevin Lowe - Rob Blake
Steve Smith - Rob Ramage
Erik Karlsson

Tony Esposito
Tim Thomas

PP1: Brian Leetch - Rob Blake - John LeClair - Wayne Gretzky - Jari Kurri
PP2: Moose Johnson - Rob Ramage - Gary Roberts - Russell Bowie - Bill Mosienko

PK1: Kevin Lowe - Moose Johnson - Rod Brind'Amour - Trevor Linden
PK2: Steve Smith - Rob Blake - Jonathan Toews - Jari Kurri

​

First off, let me just say that I think you tried a little too hard to recreate arrbez's winning formula from a few years ago, taking the same top 4 picks that he did (and drafting Brind'amour fairly early). In a 28 team draft, I thought Kurri and Johnson were kind of weak value; I understand wanting Kurri with Gretzky, but IMO Laperriere or Kasatonov could have done with Johnson did but with more versatility. That off my chest, on to the merits of the team

Coaching and leadership

Pat Quinn is a below average coach in the ATD, but his offense-first style is a good fit for this team. Tippett helps on the defensive zone of things.

Gretzky is a fantastic C. As are okay - I probably would give one of them to Rob Blake because I like having a leader on my defense, but it isn't a huge deal.

Forwards

Everyone knows what Gretzky-Kurri brings. Is Kurri as good as Bathgate or Makarov? Definitely not, but his strong defensive game means that you don't need to worry about drafting a defensive LW. LeClair will help the line in corners and is a great presence in tight for Gretzky to set up behind the net. I would prefer a real power forward who was a fighter next to Gretzky/Kurri, but maybe that's just a product of them playing in the 80s.

Second line works in the offensive zone - Bowie scores goals, Monsienko passes the puck. Roberts provides a physical presence. YMMV with Bowie but I think in a 28 team draft, Roberts is a fairly weak 2nd liner. But the big problem with the line is that it's a liability defensively - both Bowie and Monsienko were guys who had linemates do the backchecking for them (Blair Russell and Doug Bentley respectively), and while Roberts provides much needed protection for the pair of small, skilled players, I don't think he really provides much defense. Could be a problem against a well-coached team, especially since Quinn wasn't much of a line matcher.

Brind'amour is a very good two-way third liner; Billy is right that a lot of his offense came from being in front of the net on the PP, but his even strength offense remains high for a defensive player. His wingers are less good - Kilrea provides speed and decent two-way game, but unless I'm missing something, I don't really see him as much of a checker. I'm not at all a fan of Linden in a top 9 role in a draft this size - not impressed by his offense and his defense isn't good enough to make up for it IMO.

Good 4th line with a nice mix of skills

Good spares - has Patrick Sharp surpassed Gagne as a player by now? Maybe.

Defense

Typical offense-defense first pairing, certainly nothing special in a 28 team draft, but they should work well together.

I see Blake as a below average #2 at even strength and an above average one at special teams, but either way, he's an excellent #3. Lowe is a good safe partner for Blake, with the talent to be a decent #4.

Neither of your bottom pairing guys wow me, but they're okay.

Karlsson is an interesting choice for a spare; I guess he's worthy of it now. Not the most versatile spare, however.

Goaltending

Esposito is a very solid starter in this in the regular season who has his warts in the playoffs. I don't think Thomas was anything close to the BGA when you drafted him, but I can see the desire to want a playoff stud to back up Esposito, should he falter.

Special Teams

Very strong 1st PP with Leetch and Gretzky elite and the rest of the unit solid.

Weak 2nd PP. To the extent that Roberts is a worthy 2nd liner, it's because of his even strength offense. IMO, Brind'amour would be a better choice as a net presence here. Bowie and Monsienko are okay I guess. The real problem are the point men - Ramage would be fine as the 2nd best member of the unit but he's playing next to Moose Johnson, a notoriously poor puck handler, who is going to be bobbling pucks at the point.

Johnson and Brind'amour are strong on the first PK and Linden is weak. Lowe is okay I guess, though personally, I think Blake would be better.

Blake is obviously strong for a 2nd PK and I guess Steve Smith is passable. You really need to put together the deadline Gretzky-Kurri shorthanded duo.

Toews and Ramage would make decent spare PKers

Overall

I like Well constructed 1st line built around the greatest player of all-time. Well put together defensive pairings with Rob Blake a standout on the 2nd pairing. Good 1st PP.

I have concerns about 2nd line could be a liability in their own zone, which is especially concerning with Quinn's general aversion to linematching. The third line wingers are pretty weak, especially Linden. I don't really see a good PKing winger to put next to Brind'amour (other than Kurri who I like better next to Gretzky), and there really isn't a good QB for the 2nd PP.